Skip to content

KEP-5943: Introducing Snapshot Topology#606

Open
mdzraf wants to merge 1 commit into
container-storage-interface:masterfrom
mdzraf:SnapTopologyPOC
Open

KEP-5943: Introducing Snapshot Topology#606
mdzraf wants to merge 1 commit into
container-storage-interface:masterfrom
mdzraf:SnapTopologyPOC

Conversation

@mdzraf

@mdzraf mdzraf commented Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

What type of PR is this?

Introducing Snapshot Topology to CSI Spec.

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR is part of the changes necessary for kubernetes/enhancements#5944

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce an API-breaking change?:

NONE

@mdzraf

mdzraf commented Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

/assign @bswartz

@mdzraf mdzraf force-pushed the SnapTopologyPOC branch from 7e56ece to 4408487 Compare June 12, 2026 12:21
@mdzraf mdzraf changed the title Introducing Snapshot Topology KEP-5943: Introducing Snapshot Topology Jun 24, 2026
@xing-yang

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Do we need to add some constraints for TopologyRequirement in CreateVolumeRequest if VolumeContentSource is a Snapshot?

Comment thread csi.proto
@mdzraf

mdzraf commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Do we need to add some constraints for TopologyRequirement in CreateVolumeRequest if VolumeContentSource is a Snapshot?

We can discuss this but we will already be enforcing it at provisioning time via the external-provisioner and the custom scheduler plugin.

@mdzraf mdzraf force-pushed the SnapTopologyPOC branch from 4408487 to 13481dc Compare July 9, 2026 18:48
Comment thread spec.md
@@ -2037,7 +2070,7 @@ The CO MUST implement the specified error recovery behavior when it encounters t
|-----------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
| Snapshot already exists but is incompatible | 6 ALREADY_EXISTS | Indicates that a snapshot corresponding to the specified snapshot `name` already exists but is incompatible with the specified `volume_id`. | Caller MUST fix the arguments or use a different `name` before retrying. |

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

13 Is not the right number for RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED this is fixed in #605, hence why the number change here as well instead of a separate entry.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants